Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Additionally, beyond the time concern, how in Terra's name do you manage an election of that size? Even if only 10% of the population turned up to vote, that's still 30 million people. How can you fight vote fraud on that scale? How can you have any sort of meaningful discussion on that scale? You quite simply can't. You can't gather 30 million people in a room, and ask them all to give their opinion, let alone 10 times that.

As has been said many times before, the Athenian democracy only allowed a tiny fraction of people to vote. The current democratic republic allows that, but in a much more fair way than the Athenians' determined who had the right to vote.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
That being said I don't think that asking the taxpayers to subsidize trans-gendered housing on campus was a particularly helpful suggestion on the part of this student activist. I mean suppose he carries the idea - what next? will the govt be paying for special dorms for midgets? super-stable, super-serene nurseries for autistic students? what about on-campus psychiatric wards so crazy people can go to school? At some level people have to be able to cope with their..... peculiarities.... and overcome the awkwardness it might cause them, or else they can't participate. It's not the government's job to babysit people.

As I understand it the student was campaigning for gender-blind housing, which means that students can cohabitate regardless of sex or gender identification. It also means that, in dorms where bathrooms are shared, at least some of the facilities will be open to all people, regardless of sexual or gender identification.

well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

tyrr wrote: Only about one in four men actually qualified to vote and if memory serves most of them didn't. At some points they had to pay people to show up for votes because without it they couldn't reach a quorum.

I think the motivation behind this was to allow working people to take the day off from work so they could participate in politics. Not exactly popular with the upper class since it meant more popular (mob) participation.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF

What this ignores is that 'growing tits' is not a choice. Some people have a genetic abnormality which results in them possessing both male and female sexual characteristics, as you pointed out, breasts and a penis. They did not choose this lifestyle. It was placed into their genetic code. Many of them choose one gender or another to pursue. This describes intersex individuals, who are physically inbetween sexes.

Transexual individuals are those who feel as if they are placed in a wrong body, and identify completely with the other gender. They may choose to undergo sexchange surgery.

Additionally, he's not asking for whole new buildings to be constructed for them to live in. He's asking for certain buildings to be set as 'gender bllind' aka, normally males and females can not room together in college. However, in these buildings they could room together. This does not seem like too much to ask for people who feel distinctly uncomfortable being forced to live as males when they identify as female or vice versa. Remember, they are not 'choosing' to be transgendered any more than someone 'chooses' to be homosexual.

See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.


*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy.

Why is this particularly difficult though? It doesn't really impinge on the lifestyle choices of anyone else. If you're uncomfortable living with members of the opposite sex, then you are still free to decide not to do so. Its also not an issue limited to transgendered people. Many, many homosexuals are uncomfortable living with members of the same sex due to the resultant sexual tension. I had a lesbian suite-mate in college for this very reason.

Think of it another way. By forcing people to live with members of the same sex the state is effectively taking special measures to accommodate heterosexual individuals to the exclusion of any other possible option. The alternative, gender blind housing, costs very nearly nothing (and very often, absolutely nothing) and appeals to a number of people outside the transgendered community.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF

And self-image is a direct result of the physical state of one's brain, just like all other mental states.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.


*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.

Until you've lived with a woman that you aren't sleeping with you have no idea how horribly inaccurate that statements is.

Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.


*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.

As usual Frazzled, your posts make me laugh at the debate, no matter how serious the topic matter is. But while, no doubt, some would use it as. "Awesome, I can 'room' with my boyfriend/girlfriend." I doubt it'd be that big an issue.....

Would you feel happier if everyone who took the gender blind dorm had to raise an attack dachshund for your army as tribute?

ChrisWWII wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:

well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF

What this ignores is that 'growing tits' is not a choice. Some people have a genetic abnormality which results in them possessing both male and female sexual characteristics, as you pointed out, breasts and a penis. They did not choose this lifestyle. It was placed into their genetic code. Many of them choose one gender or another to pursue. This describes intersex individuals, who are physically inbetween sexes.

no hermaphrodites dont choose their lifestyle. that's true. they have some special challenges no doubt. I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all. other people do in fact choose to grow tits. they take pills especially for that purpose.

Transexual individuals are those who feel as if they are placed in a wrong body, and identify completely with the other gender. They may choose to undergo sexchange surgery.

Additionally, he's not asking for whole new buildings to be constructed for them to live in. He's asking for certain buildings to be set as 'gender bllind' aka, normally males and females can not room together in college. However, in these buildings they could room together. This does not seem like too much to ask for people who feel distinctly uncomfortable being forced to live as males when they identify as female or vice versa. Remember, they are not 'choosing' to be transgendered any more than someone 'chooses' to be homosexual.

people don't choose their predispositions, but they do choose what to do with those predispositions. No one's saying they can't live the way they want to. But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.

Maybe that seems insensitive but if you ask other people to make accomodations for you then you need a better reason than "it will make me feel more comfortable with the extreme lifestyle I choose to practice."
AF


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.

exactly.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Frazzled wrote:See that part I strongly disagree with. I don't care what your orientation is. I just don't want to pay for Club Hedonism (coed). Franky if we weren't able to have that sort of shenanigans you donkey-caves shouldn't have that kind of fun either* Thats fine but do it on your own dime.


*98% of old folks advice is really you we missed out so screw you too.

As usual Frazzled, your posts make me laugh at the debate, no matter how serious the topic matter is. But while, no doubt, some would use it as. "Awesome, I can 'room' with my boyfriend/girlfriend." I doubt it'd be that big an issue.....

Would you feel happier if everyone who took the gender blind dorm had to raise an attack dachshund for your army as tribute?

Well, yea.

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy.

Why is this particularly difficult though? It doesn't really impinge on the lifestyle choices of anyone else. If you're uncomfortable living with members of the opposite sex, then you are still free to decide not to do so. Its also not an issue limited to transgendered people. Many, many homosexuals are uncomfortable living with members of the same sex due to the resultant sexual tension. I had a lesbian suite-mate in college for this very reason.

It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity. Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.

Think of it another way. By forcing people to live with members of the same sex the state is effectively taking special measures to accommodate heterosexual individuals to the exclusion of any other possible option. The alternative, gender blind housing, costs very nearly nothing (and very often, absolutely nothing) and appeals to a number of people outside the transgendered community.

some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF

And self-image is a direct result of the physical state of one's brain, just like all other mental states.

thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day. Transgendered people make a conscious decision to alter their physical gender. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just shouldn't have to subsidize that decision with my tax dollars, that's all.
AF

No I think its highly accurate. I am old, therefore an expert on all things old. Most of my advice is feth you, if I couldn't do it, you don't get to. (ok most of my advice is really just feth you).

dogma wrote:I had a lesbian suite-mate in college for this very reason.

That's hot. Tell us more and spare no details. And type slowly.

lol

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all.

Strawman. No one is suggest special housing for hermaphrodites.

But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.

Again with the straw man. No one is demanding 'special' housing.

And by the way, midgets likely do have the right to special housing under the Americans with Disabilities act. Granted, I might be wrong on that, but it would fall under the same consideration as someone that uses a wheelchair.

skyth wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I just think it would be absurd for universities to provide hermaphrodites with special housing. that's all.

Strawman. No one is suggest special housing for hermaphrodites.

ChrisWWII did. If he didnt intend to carry his argument about hermaphrodites not choosing their condition to special housing then it doesn't have anything to do with anything.

But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.

Again with the straw man. No one is demanding 'special' housing.

the student president wants to rearrange the housing situation based on the preference of a tiny minority of the student population. that's special accomodations. special 'housing' may not have been the best word. mea culpa.

And by the way, midgets likely do have the right to special housing under the Americans with Disabilities act. Granted, I might be wrong on that, but it would fall under the same consideration as someone that uses a wheelchair.

I doubt it, but would be curious to know what the law actually says.

Team Weinie would be down with appropriately heighted tables and counters. The Shanker gets very tired of having to jump up into any chair left out to access the kitchen table when we are not looking, when he's not dragging dead birds into the house.

thing is the midget would probably have the better claim to special accomodations. after all he has an actual physical condition. the transgendered person just wants to be a boy/girl/whatever.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity.

There is a massive difference between purpose building dorms for midgets, and 'rezoning' preexisting dorms in a way which is nonexclusive. The midget dorm would be unusable for anyone else, the gender blind dorm would be perfectly acceptable to anyone who wasn't set on living in heterosexually biased housing.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.

First off, it hasn't been stopped right up front. Almost all universities in the States offer co-educational and single sex housing, as well as dormitories with permanent quiet hours, religion specific housing (normally this is done for Jews, but I've seen it for Muslims as well, and Christians), and all sorts of other special concessions. Most of which require far more in terms of expenditure than gender blind housing; maintaining Kosher kitchens in Jewish dormitories, for example.

Second, the addition to the bureaucracy is minuscule, if it exists at all. Housing offices at universities will not create additional staff for this sort of thing, its literally just one more housing option that people can choose from in the course of their academic career.

Third, its extremely poor form to speak in general terms about what constitutes a 'god-send' to a large gender category. It isn't as though all heterosexual students enjoy living in coeducational dormitories, or single sex dormitories. Individual people have different preferences, and gender blind housing can accommodate some of them for a minimal cost, if any.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....

Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day.

There is no particular reason that we cannot blame someone because their actions are the result of their brain chemistry instead of what we would conventionally call conscious thought. We blame autistic children for their difficulties, but we're also more understanding of their struggles because we know that its difficult for them to act differently. Homosexuality, and transgender issues are the same way.

You also have to be careful to note that exercising self-control does not mean behaving like everyone else. Exercising self-control means ignoring some impulses while acting on others, which has no necessary bearing on what, specifically, a given person will actually do. For example, I exercise self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another drink. I'm not, however, exercising self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another coffee as I have no impulse to drink coffee.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
Transgendered people make a conscious decision to alter their physical gender. And there's nothing wrong with that. I just shouldn't have to subsidize that decision with my tax dollars, that's all.
AF

No, that is completely wrong. Transgendered people have not necessarily undergone surgery to modify their bodies.

AF wrote:
people don't choose their predispositions, but they do choose what to do with those predispositions. No one's saying they can't live the way they want to. But the government doesn't have to molly coddle them. Look do I as a gay man have the right to demand special treatment from the university? a special gays only area so I feel more comfortable? Do midgets have the right to specially-built apartments so they can be more comfortable with their midget-ness? Do autists have the right to special housing so that nothing will upset their delicate equilibrium? These are just unreasonable proposals. I don't have anything against trans-gendered people. What I'm against is the demand for special accomodations to suit the choices that someone makes. Like a man voluntarily growing tits and dressing up as a woman, for instance.

I would totally be on your side if they were building some new building for them or something like that. But they aren't. They're changing the rules of an existing building to allow for trans and intersecual individuals to live more comfortably. Besides, I'm perfectly willing to bet there are straight couples who wouldn't mind rooming together in a college.

The difference between this and midgets getting their own specialized redesigned building is that to renovate a building, you must spend money. To change the rules? Barely anything at all.

Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.

Well then, to quote She Who Must Obeyed, what exactly is the big ing deal anyway?

Nog confused.

Frazzled wrote:

Well then, to quote She Who Must Obeyed, what exactly is the big ing deal anyway?

Nog confused.

To me, nothing. But, Abaddon sees it as conforming too much to niche needs. At least, that's what I'm getting out of his arguments...please correct me if I'm wrong.

That's basically what everyone for gender blind dormitories thinks too. It mystifies a lot of people that there is so much opposition to the idea. Usually it comes down to people like the AG mentioned in this thread being against the integration of alternative genders into the student population, or a sort of indefinable wrongness that is felt with respect to the idea of men and women living in the same room. Even though its a basic reality of coeducational housing, its not like all those hetero couples are spending their nights alone. For that matter, its not like all those gay couples are doing it either.

Despite what is usually said against gender blindness, it has almost nothing to do with sex.

dogma wrote:That's basically what everyone for gender blind dormitories thinks too. It mystifies a lot of people that there is so much opposition to the idea. Usually it comes down to people like the AG mentioned in this thread being against the integration of alternative genders into the student population, or a sort of indefinable wrongness that is felt with respect to the idea of men and women living in the same room. Even though its a basic reality of coeducational housing, its not like all those hetero couples are spending their nights alone. For that matter, its not like all those gay couples are doing it either.

Despite what is usually said against gender blindness, it has almost nothing to do with sex.

Well I think we've learned something valuable today. Oh wait, no we haven't.
p
The more important question is, which dorm eats more pizza, coed or same sex? Pizzaaaaaa....

dogma wrote:

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
It creates a bad precedent. Next thing midgets get their own dorms because they need short kitchen counters and little refrigerators to not be inconvenienced. You want midgets to go to school don't you? you want them to be happy and well adjusted dont you? Is it really that big of a deal to ask the university to shell out a couple million dollars to refit a few dormatories so midgets will feel better? This kind of thing leads to absurdity.

There is a massive difference between purpose building dorms for midgets, and 'rezoning' preexisting dorms in a way which is nonexclusive. The midget dorm would be unusable for anyone else, the gender blind dorm would be perfectly acceptable to anyone who wasn't set on living in heterosexually biased housing.

the difference is one of degree. once you've admitted the principle that any minority - no matter how small - has the right to make special demands on institutions, you're going to be lead by steps and degrees to exactly this situation. midgets dont have any less right to be happy and well adjusted than LGBT people. if the taxpayers have to shell out a couple of million dollars to make them feel better then that just shows we really are an all-inclusive, equality-based society.

It's the principle I object to.

Best to stop it right up front. In addition to that it creates extra rules and regulations, more bureaucracy, etc. It's far, far better to just keep things the way they are. Believe me same-sex dormatories are a god-send to gay university students all over the world.

First off, it hasn't been stopped right up front. Almost all universities in the States offer co-educational and single sex housing, as well as dormitories with permanent quiet hours, religion specific housing (normally this is done for Jews, but I've seen it for Muslims as well, and Christians), and all sorts of other special concessions. Most of which require far more in terms of expenditure than gender blind housing; maintaining Kosher kitchens in Jewish dormitories, for example.

and all of which are a bad idea. the government shouldn't be paying to segregate its citizens into exclusive little tribes based on race/religion/sexual preference etc. If people want to do that it ought to be on their own dime.

Second, the addition to the bureaucracy is minuscule, if it exists at all. Housing offices at universities will not create additional staff for this sort of thing, its literally just one more housing option that people can choose from in the course of their academic career.

not for this one thing, no. but to enact the principle - that special groups deserve special housing considerations - it absolutely does require an expansion of the bureaucracy. that's more people drawing a salary and making rules that don't actually lead to anything productive. it's just a drain on everyone.

Third, its extremely poor form to speak in general terms about what constitutes a 'god-send' to a large gender category. It isn't as though all heterosexual students enjoy living in coeducational dormitories, or single sex dormitories. Individual people have different preferences, and gender blind housing can accommodate some of them for a minimal cost, if any.

I can't be bothered to tip toe around your sensibilities, dogma. young gay men like having sex with other young gay men. gender based housing increases their sexual opportunities and is likely to be looked upon favorably by that group. However disturbing that frank statement of fact may be to your delicate sense of propriety, it is in fact true.

some heterosexual people might object to this situation - young women and their families, for instance, who are concerned about unwanted sexual advances and rape. I believe the incidence of these would go up if young men and women were housed together on campus. that's surely a bigger problem than the miniscule number of transgendered people on campus....

Young men and women are already housed together in coed dormitories, and almost always have the option of living in single-sex dormitories. The only difference between gender blind dormitories and coeducational dormitories is that men and women can occupy the same room, which is entirely a matter of choice for the residents.

so what's this student activist's problem? why does that situation not satisfy him? Or if it would, and he's advocating for the creation of those dorms, why does it have to be couched in language exclusive to the LGBT community?

thoughts determine brain chemistry as much as brain chemistry determines thoughts. People have more control over their own mental processes than they like to pretend. The upshot of arguments that thinking is the result of brain chemistry which is beyond one's control is that one's actions are beyond one's control and one is therefore not responsible for them. This is not only politically dangerous, it's also just wrong. Most of us exercise self control every day.

There is no particular reason that we cannot blame someone because their actions are the result of their brain chemistry instead of what we would conventionally call conscious thought. We blame autistic children for their difficulties, but we're also more understanding of their struggles because we know that its difficult for them to act differently. Homosexuality, and transgender issues are the same way.

I don't find anything blame worthy that is not chosen. volition is a basic principle of morality. in its absence I dont see how there can be any guilt, blame, or responsibility.

You also have to be careful to note that exercising self-control does not mean behaving like everyone else. Exercising self-control means ignoring some impulses while acting on others, which has no necessary bearing on what, specifically, a given person will actually do. For example, I exercise self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another drink. I'm not, however, exercising self-control when I don't give into my impulse to have another coffee as I have no impulse to drink coffee.

yeah I dont disagree with that.

It basically boils down to it not hurting anyone (It costs no extra money to have the option and it is not an option forced on someone who doesn't want it). I doubt there is any real argument against it besides wanting to discriminate against someone who is different in one way or another.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
the difference is one of degree. once you've admitted the principle that any minority - no matter how small - has the right to make special demands on institutions, you're going to be lead by steps and degrees to exactly this situation. midgets dont have any less right to be happy and well adjusted than LGBT people. if the taxpayers have to shell out a couple of million dollars to make them feel better then that just shows we really are an all-inclusive, equality-based society.

It's the principle I object to.

If that's true, then you shouldn't be opposing this. After all, all state institutions, and institutions that accept state funding, already make concessions to the handicapped in terms of accessibility.

That's the problem with slippery slope arguments, if they hold water, then the conversation that they're being levied with respect to shouldn't be happening. Or, if it is happening, then the whole matter is just a waste of breath as it was settled long ago by an unrelated decision.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
and all of which are a bad idea. the government shouldn't be paying to segregate its citizens into exclusive little tribes based on race/religion/sexual preference etc. If people want to do that it ought to be on their own dime.

Then why are they paying to segregate them on the basis of sex? If the issue really is one of not paying for anything, then gender blind housing is by far the cheapest solution. Anyone can live anywhere, no worries over any delineation.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
not for this one thing, no. but to enact the principle - that special groups deserve special housing considerations - it absolutely does require an expansion of the bureaucracy. that's more people drawing a salary and making rules that don't actually lead to anything productive. it's just a drain on everyone.

And it has already happened. In fact, it happened as soon as colleges became sexually integrated, and began to offer housing.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I can't be bothered to tip toe around your sensibilities, dogma. young gay men like having sex with other young gay men. gender based housing increases their sexual opportunities and is likely to be looked upon favorably by that group. However disturbing that frank statement of fact may be to your delicate sense of propriety, it is in fact true.

Its not a matter of sensibilities, its literally a matter of fact. You're making a broad, inaccurate statement in order to support your argument. That should be criticized so that it can be corrected.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
so what's this student activist's problem? why does that situation not satisfy him? Or if it would, and he's advocating for the creation of those dorms, why does it have to be couched in language exclusive to the LGBT community?

Its not, that's just what the assistant AG was claiming.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:
I don't find anything blame worthy that is not chosen. volition is a basic principle of morality. in its absence I dont see how there can be any guilt, blame, or responsibility.

Its really quite easy. If a person does something, then they can be blamed for it. If an autistic person were a liability in a given situation we would surely blame him for being autistic, and thus keep him out of the situation in which he would a liability.

Remember, choice cannot occur unless you are constrained, and if you are constrained, and these is no 'homunculus', then its quite likely that you serve as definite constraint on yourself. That may not eliminate choice altogether, but it very certainly redefines its meaning.

Openly gay: no problem.
Openly xtian family values: no problem.
Openly assholish-shove-it-in-everyone's-face about either: problem

Openly "Nobody sane gives a feth": priceless.

young people like having sex with other young people

I made your statement more accurate and less gay. Wait, this isn't even accurate enough!

humans like having sex with other humans

It is true, we do. Sex is pretty awesome pretty much the majority of a human's life cycle.

AbaddonFidelis wrote:well if he was proposing this just on the basis that it will make life easier for the 0.00005% of the population that is trans-gendered I still think its a pretty lame idea. You need a more substantial motivation for this kind of reshuffle than placating a few people who, of their own free choice, choose to pursue an extreme life style. I mean if a guy wants to grow tits and pay some surgeon to turn his weiner inside out then hey it's a free country, god bless, but the government doesn't have to make any special accomodations just to suit that one guy. The medicalization of this set of choices is a farce - transgendered people don't have a psychiatric condition. What they have is a self image that they would very much like their bodies to reflect. AF

I think you probably need to do do a lot more reading on the subject, because none of what you wrote there relates in any way to what's being said by the transgendered, or by the people studying their condition. In fact, there are essential biological differences between men's and women's brains, and sometimes they don't always end up in the right body.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Ahtman wrote:It is true, we do. Sex is pretty awesome pretty much the majority of a human's life cycle.

Dude, you're on a wargaming site. That's not a nice thing to bring up.

skyth wrote:It basically boils down to it not hurting anyone (It costs no extra money to have the option and it is not an option forced on someone who doesn't want it). I doubt there is any real argument against it besides wanting to discriminate against someone who is different in one way or another.

dorms cost money to build. if you take a section of the dorm and say "gender-blind only" then that limits its use by other groups of people. Its an allocation of resources to suit the preferences of a tiny minority of people. I'm not against equal treatment - I'm against the reallocation of tax dollars to suit peoples lifestyle choices. AF

Can I have a 'long-haired-rock-dudes-who-like-blondes' dorm? I feel that my personal choices and lifestyle is not being properly embraced by the university community.

Equal treatment means NO treatment. If you want to live with a choice pick of certain types of people and segregate yourself then do so. Don't expect it to be the rest of the community's responsibility to facilitate it though. One year when I was in college I lived in a house with 5 girls and one other guy. Nobody in the house was sleeping with anyone else in the house we all had external GF/BF. None of us had a problem (well except a few days a month when me and the other guy kind of weren't around much because girls living together tend to start cycling together).

I don't see any big deal in wanting a certain type of roommate, I for instance would not want to live with a frivolous annoying gay guy, but then again I wouldn't want to live with anyone frivolous and annoying. My choice. But still, I feel underrepresented by lack of provisions made for 'long-haired-rock-dude' housing.